Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I think the arguments at http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/10/31/0328239.shtml need to be considered.Herve661 03:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Wikipedia has a policy of mentioning the sexual orientation of celebrities who are known to be non-heterosexual. But celebrities known to be heterosexual/straight do not appear to have this information included.

While I can understand that heterosexuality is of little interest to anyone — what makes the other sexualities more interesting and more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia?

There are many personal details about celebrities that most people would surely consider irrelevant to their public status, and unnecessary of inclusion in Wikipedia, such as their shoe size, hair colour, left-handedness, weight, race, etc. I don't see why their sexual preferences are any more relevant.

It may be relevant if the celebrity's sex life, or sexuality itself, are of particular relevance to their celebrity status or somehow feature in their work. In which case, the disclosure of their sexuality should surely be mentioned in relation to that, rather than in isolation.

So, rather than saying:

"Sarah is openly gay."

The article should say:

"Sarah is openly gay, her homosexuality playing a large part of her humour and often being the subject of public attention."

If the celebrity's homosexuality (or bisexuality) isn't actually relevant to their fame at all, it surely need not be specifically mentioned:

"Sarah has had numerous girlfriends, some of whom have appeared on the show with her." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Dizzy (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found this interesting, especially since there are no categories for straight people, but there are GLBTs. Perhaps its because heterosexuality is deemed "the norm", and not being "normal" is notable enough to discuss. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. How one perceives the whole issue aside, "I'm gay" simply carries more notability than "I'm straight" in most cases (a gay man suddenly saying the latter might be an exception). It might be a different story when the media dismisses it as commonplace. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We make mentions of people who were adopted (Category:Adoptees and its well-populated sub-categories) even when that fact has little signifiance to the subject's notability. We don't make mention of people who were not adopted, nor do we say that a politician won the majority of votes in their district, etc. In these cases, we are making a note when someone deviates from the norm. Most people are not adopted. Most politicans get a majority of votes. It's the case where there's an exception (e.g. Bush 2000) where it becomes of note. No value judgement is made. We aren't saying Adopted people are better or worse, and nor does the placement of someoe in a category imply much of anything. Yes, heterosexuality is considered the norm. But that's just the defintion of normal. 90-99% of the population (depending on where you take your figures. Demographics of sexual orientation notes that range, saying that there's a mean of about 95-96%) is heterosexual. That's the norm. Without having to make any value judgements at all, an attribute of someone who lies two standard deviations from the mean is generally worth mention. Heterosexuality is the norm. We can go for ages about why that is (i.e. biological or cognative), but at the end of the day, it is "normal" or "typical" to be heterosexual. --Ybbor^Talk 03:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP's for heterosexuals often note that they are married, have children (and sometimes give ages and even names of issue) which rarely has any impact on the subjects notability. Obviously the phrase "heterosexual" itself doesn't appear, but the orientation is obvious - and as irrelevant. LessHeard vanU 12:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Oscar Wilde was married and had children... SamBC(talk) 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no such policy that strictly forbids or allows it. Its just standard practice combined with a few other policies. If a celebrity comes out as being gay, that fact would probably make the cover of every celebrity magazine and would be widely circulated on the internet. If a celebrity issues a press release saying that they are straight, the media is going to say "Who cares?" There just really aren't any sources that specifically mention things about celebrities that are considered "normal" - people wouldn't pay to read it so People isn't going to report it. If there are almost no sources saying something about someone, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to mention it in their article. If there are a lot of sources, then apparently people consider that to be a significant fact and we should probably include it. Mr.Z-man 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Sambc, indeed - but it isn't relevant to Wildes notability other than an example of Victorian morality, whereas his homosexuality did effect both his work and his life. To Mr.Z-man, but the same celebrity lifestyle magazines are full of straight celebrities personal lives regarding girl/boyfriends, engagements and marriages; it is simply an assumption of heterosexuality rather than the publicising of it.LessHeard vanU 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we can't use info like X is married to Y to source statements like X and Y are heterosexual. That would be synthesis. Mr.Z-man 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't synthesies, we often simply state that X is/was married to Y - and allow the reader to draw the conclusions. That said, X being married to Y is rarely of any consequence to the notability of the parties concerned. LessHeard vanU 12:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the determination to mention someone's sexual orientation should be made on a case-by-case basis. For celebrities, public figures, and historical figures, their sexual orientation could well be relevant, particularly if they are LGBT in an oppressive era or geographic location, or if they were closeted. If a public or historical figure was hiding something, that's usually interesting. It's also interesting if they are a role model because of their sexuality, or if they themselves have spoken about their sexuality. Like it or not, LGBT identity is more notable than straight identity, because we're in a historic period where LGBT issues are controversial and widely talked about. Plus, (1) LGBT people want LGBT role models, and (2) straight people are fascinated with LGBT identity.

For some people, however, it's just not really germane to the article. For example, who cares if an obscure Nobel Prize winner in physics or chemistry is gay? They are only notable because of the prize they won and for their scientific work. How is their sexual orientation relevant or even interesting? Another example might be authors who are not public figures. If someone is otherwise obscure and private, and is known only for their work or some notable event that has nothing to do with LGBT issues, I don't see how sexual orientation or identity is relevant or interesting.

On another point, I've always been bothered by statements that so-and-so are "openly gay", since we would never say someone is "openly straight". If the subject of an article is gay, and that fact is worth noting for some reason, then let's just say that they are "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", or "asexual", etc. In the case of closeted living people, we can't comment on their sexuality, so for any mention of sexuality of living people, "openly" is a given, so why say it? For dead people, it may very well be relevant that a person was closeted, since that fact and their sexuality was likely very important to that person and those around him or her. But while we might comment that a dead person was in the closet, I don't see any need to ever use the term "openly gay", as if being open about your sexuality is something unusual. COGDEN 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said before - part of the opportunity is that in other areas we mention that someone is or is not something, and expect the reader to conclude if we don't mention that they are either the other way inclined or of no public position on the issue - we don't for instance have many white people categories, but we are pretty equal on male/female cats. I think part of the advantage of using the category is that in part it is driven by the GLBT editors and community itself to recognise how normal the whole issue is, and that its OK to be gay - lets be honest, there is still unfortunatly homophobia in the world. Part of the brief of Wikipedia is to educate, and for that reason in this case I don't think we need a tag which relates to some form of openly hetrosexual - the tags and volumes of diverse people within the GLBT cats highlight just how normal the whole issue is. On your second (implied) point of how we write the sexuality in to the article, I think its best left to an article by article conclusion/debate - but unless the subject has said "hey, I'm openly gay" then using such a term in their article would seem NPOV. Rgds, - Trident13 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we say that Dumbledore is simply "a closeted gay", rather than making a big, perverted fuss about it. Right?~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore is a character in a series of books, not a real person, and Rowlings identification of him as gay is more to do with how she saw the development of the character to what he is when the story of Harry Potter involves him. It is to be considered that Rowling is not gay herself, so her interpretation of how a persons homosexuality might impinge on their character is both likely theoretical and open to artistic license. Lastly, he's a ruddy wizard - not really based in the human experience, I would suggest. LessHeard vanU 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A long term solution will be tricky to find. A person's sexual preference should not, in my opinion, be any more notable than their eye colour. Unfortunately it seems that a homosexual soccer-player / politician / pop-star becomes more notable just because they've declared their sexuality. What do we do if they've been outed, but deny it? Also, sticking a label on someone seems a bit binary; maybe some people are a bit more complicated than "gay" and "not gay". (But I can't imagine saying that John Doe is 'a little bit gay'.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like [1] is bad, right? Anyone care to revert? --NE2 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that scroll bars are bad, but that application of them certainly seems inappropriate. I don't see what you buy by scrolling 98% of the article text in a small window. Vegaswikian 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll bars are not inherently bad, but they are almost always used badly, and very seldom have a place on Wikipedia. They can hinder accessibility by breaking screen readers; they make printing articles difficult; they can screw up formatting in some browsers; they take up valuable screen real estate; and long articles get scroll bars on their window anyway. Concur with removing them in this instance and most instances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has placed the scroll bar back on the page. It is certainly out of place there. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I wondered what the next step would be if the person refuses to comply with the prevailing view? D3av 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In brief, take it up with the editor first, then escalate if necessary. Powers ^T 13:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. User:Caroig's {{Geobox}} template shows up technical categories in all articles which use it, see e.g. Warta Bolesławiecka and Category:Geobox City, Poland which shows up. Caroig said he didn't find any official policy saying that such categories in the article namespace are prohibited. I asked him to alter the Geobox code but he don't want to do that. I can't recall any Infobox which have such categories in article namespace. Caroig insists it is the same as categories regarding cleanup or wikification but I suppose it is not. Can you point me to proper policy or advise what to do, please? Thank you. - Darwinek 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Category:Geobox City, Poland doesn't exist (it is a redlink currently). You should be able to remove a non-existing category from a template that is intended to be used in the main namespace, per Wikipedia:Use common sense, which is covered by the policy WP:IAR.
2. If User:Caroig behaves as if (s)he owns the {{Geobox}} template, or if this user made that template too complex for anyone else to understand how to edit it, there is a WP:OWN infringement (we're talking about main namespace content here). WP:OWN is policy.

Actually what is that led you to state I behave as if I own the template? Because I asked a user who suggested something to support his statement with more detailed arguments? – Caroig (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Geobox" is a kind of self-reference: the word "Geobox" is relevant for those building the encyclopedia, but it has virtually no relevance in the general categorisation schemes for main namespace articles, e.g. it's not as if this category would belong in any subcategory of Category:Boxes (which doesn't even exist). Although this specific case isn't mentioned in WP:ASR, it falls under that guideline. It is also inappropriate to categorise cities as a kind of "box". "Geobox" is also singular, while Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) specifies to put (main namespace) categories in plural. So if Category:Geobox City, Poland (or any similar) were created it would be up for WP:CfD in no time. After its removal we're back at the first step above for removing the category name from any template that is intended to be used in main namespace.
2. Why don't you use {{Infobox Settlement}} in the Warta Bolesławiecka and similar articles? Compare the article on Sejny where that infobox is used. --Francis Schonken 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many such categories created by User:Caroig, e.g. Category:Geobox Settlement, Slovakia and Category:Geobox Building, Slovakia. Do you think I should nominate all categories of this kind to WP:CFD? - Darwinek 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Geobox2 appears to be the "root" category of this categorisation system. There is no supercategory defined for that category. In other words, this category scheme does not resolve to Category:Categories, which it should per Wikipedia:Categorization#Browsing categories ("Category:Categories - List of top-level categories. Requires this category be defined on the top of a tree." - my bolding). So it would be possible to CfD Category:Geobox2 and "all" subcategories (without needing to name them individually). For subcategories named (for example) Category:Geobox Settlement, Slovakia a renaming/merging to Category:Settlements in Slovakia would probably be preferred (as suggested below) - then, yes one would need to list each proposed merger/renaming for such categories as part of the WP:CfD process. For the "technical" categories (e.g. Category:Geobox2 documentation) and for the templates that generate names of "geobox" category names I don't know: either the Wikipedia community decides to ge rid of the system, either they should be renamed/re-organised/rewritten in a vein to separate main namespace content and other content per WP:ASR. Caroig could help with that reorganisation, or otherwise, most likely, the Wikipedia community could decide to dunk the geobox2 system. If Caroig's intention was to create a bot-like application, which he seems to suggest ("... machine-parseable ...") he should seek permission via the procedures explained at WP:BOTS before setting up the system. See also the main principle of page naming (also applicable to Category names) at the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page: "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (my bolding) - machines are not part of the picture of those who should be able to easily recognise page names. So, yes, currently Caroig's approach is in conflict with a host of policies & guidelines: thus far I named the policies WP:OWN, WP:BOTS, WP:NC, and most notably also the guidelines WP:ASR, WP:CAT and WP:NCCAT. --Francis Schonken 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Omission of parent category fixed. There is no indication of an active bot so WP:BOTS is not relevant; machine-parseable has other meanings such as Google being able to recognize data. Are there issues other than the category structure or naming? (SEWilco 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  Please could you first have a look at what the {{Geobox}} is, where and how it is used, read the debates on its talk page before suggesting it should be ditched and stating the intention is to create a bot-like application? I really don't know what might have led to this conclusion. If you feel there's something wrong with the categorization of the various subtemplates or the auto categories, why don't you post it on the {{Geobox}} talk page? – Caroig (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If issues weren't resolving on Template_talk:Geobox, and an editor brings it to the attention here at VPP, there's nothing wrong with discussing it here. I keep my part of the discussion here, while I think the issue broader than the categorisation included in the {{Geobox}} template (the topic discussed on the {{geobox}} talk page), and broader than that template over-all. Of course I also expressed my opinion on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_25#Geobox_categories (which is currently: "rename" if the proponents of the system are willing to collaborate towards an appropriate renaming scheme, otherwise: "delete")

  The debate had only started at User talk:Caroig#Suggestion so it's odd claim the discussion wasn't leading anywhere. While some reasoning was given in the reply, those who object to this feature didn't state their reasons clearly at all, what should any one make of: I am sure there is something in WP:MOS/WP:CAT. The debate rightly belongs to the {{Geobox}} talk page so that the users after whose requests the disputed feature was added can have their say. Dealing with the topic here, behind everyone's back, is not a good practice either on Wikipedia or in discussions anywhere generally. So please put your further comment just there. – Caroig (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the WP:BOTS issue, I brought it up based on the content of the {{Geobox2 category}} template, used on "geobox" category pages [2], the content of which reads: "This is an auto-generated category of all (...) that make use of the {{Geobox}} template." - "auto-generated" seems to indicate a bot operation. --Francis Schonken 11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The lack of understanding (in case of machine readable or auto-generated or how a bot can be set up) or that something just seems is not a good base to suggest ditching a template, which is just one more and versatile Infobox. If there's something that's not clear it's a good practice to ask and check the issue first before jumping to such far-fetched conclusions. – Caroig (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The more common format for categories seems to be something like "Category:Wikipedia Geobox Settlement in Slovakia". See the list of categories starting with "Wikipedia". (SEWilco 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Perhaps the template should be generating Category:Settlements in Slovakia? Due to Special:Whatlinkshere is there a need for Geobox categories? (SEWilco 17:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • These settlements are already properly categorized. Per common sense and also some policies (see above) there is no need for such categories although user who created them argues they are needed, because "I don't think there's a problem having a category indicating the article contains geodata in a machine-parseable format." - Darwinek 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the category name should be something like Articles with geographical coordinates, following other "Articles with..." categories. But that cat doesn't include other coordinate-including articles. Discuss with Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. (SEWilco 19:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Nominated to WP:CFD --> here. Please vote and express your opinion. - Darwinek 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the debate to be placed on just one place, the best one might be the {{Geobox}} talk page: Template talk:Geobox#Auto categories. – Caroig (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a contribution is deleted without the deletor and/or wikipedia staff even having the courtesy to contact the contributor and debate the significance, where does the contributor go to debate the significance of the contribution? Especially if the contributor is above average sure the deleter is wrong and should be forced to debate the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OlympedeCleves (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to your edits being reverted? If an editor reverted your edits, then I would check in their edit summary for the reasoning behind their edit. Most of the time, the editor in question will leave a note on your talk page explaining the reason for their revert. If they did not, then feel free to leave a message on their talk page. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about contributions to an article usually take place on the Talk page of the article. There are exceptions, such as if the topic belongs in another article or just not here. Check the History of the article to see if an editor put comments there during the change. (SEWilco 17:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If you refer to pages being deleted then see Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. PrimeHunter 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a debate, the correct forum is WP:DRV.--Bedivere 16:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a standard for handling a set of general references that apply to a large number of pages? The two approaches I've seen are:

1. Add a link to a separate page showing the references.
2. Create a template with the list of general references.

Both have received objections by some users. The former doesn't present the information on the same page, while the later can result in an unwieldy list that can appear on all of the associated pages. Either seems preferable to independently maintaining the same list on a multitude of pages. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the references are relevant to the articles, the "unwieldy list" belongs on those articles. (SEWilco 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Less than 100% of the references are relevant to every article. — RJH (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of included irrelevant references on an article; those are not references to that article. Are these references likely to change? If not, then, I would just copy and paste the references into each article. Karanacs 15:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand why we are including references to articles that aren't actually used in those articles? Let me get this straight. You read a book. You put information from that book into an article. You cite that reference. How does a reference that you don't read and that does not contain any information get into a list of references for a particular article anyways? This is confusing to me. If the article uses or cites the reference, include it in the References section. If the article does not directly cite a reference, but the work in question contains information that could likely be cited, or which is closely related to the article, include it in the Further reading section. If the reference is entirely unrelated to the article in question, don't include it. What is the specific problem we are trying to fix with these random "other pages" or "templates" or whatever? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I currently maintain the wikipedia article for the USS Springfield (SSN-761), and am a crewmember of that ship. I'll admit that I haven't added all too much to it, and there's much more that could be done with it. But I keep it up-to-date with all the current information of the command and a brief overview of its operations. Currently the page is rated poorly because of the lack of citations. But when I update the article to reflect that CDR Paul Savage is the commanding officer I don't use a citation. I don't need one. He's my boss, of course I know who the commanding officer is. I know what awards we receive, what operations we're on. I know this because I'm on the ship every day. How am I supposed to reflect this for Wikipedia citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divsky (talk • contribs) 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:No original research. You are a primary source, thus can't be used as a reference here. Surely there is documentation somewhere. I'm sure a base newspaper would have an article on a change of command for the boat. Certainly orders were posted under a document number. --Gadget850 (Ed) 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content could presumably go into the article's talk page until you find a cite.LeadSongDog 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for serving our country, that's a wonderful thing for you to do. However, being a member of the crew doesn't count as source. I found that out the hard way with a different article. Again, thank you for your service. . CelticGreen 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:NOT - the goal of Wikipedia isn't to collect all the information in the world, it's to be an encyclopedia. What's interesting to you, other crew members, families of crew members, and former members of the crew may never be published in a reliable source (using primary sources, such as published orders, is controversial); if not, then Wikipedia isn't the right place to post it - a blog, or a personal webpage, are better. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the content of that article is entirely reasonable stuff to include in an article on the boat; it covers her basic history (construction and commissioning date, plankowner CO, homeport, her one major refit period, last deployment, and current operations); the current CO, XO, and COB are also encyclopedic information that's reasonable to include in such an article, I'd say, while the awards section is seen in a number of other articles about past and current US Navy vessels. While I agree that sources should be cited for the assertations of fact (perhaps the Navy's website or the Groton base newspaper would have such references?), I don't see anything wrong with the content of the article as it is now.

Divsky, thank you for serving our country; as someone who knows (not from personal experience, mind you, but from a lifelong fascination) what the two kinds of ships in the ocean are, I particularly want to thank you for going into the Silent Service; it's arguably the hardest life in the entire military. That said, as people pointed out, Wikipedia policy recommends that primary sources (such as personal knowledge from being a member of the crew) be avoided when possible. While you may use them to help identify notable things that can be added to the article to improve it, you need to find a way to back up the claims with independantly verifiable cited sources. Navy press releases would be an excellent choice, as I believe they're archived on the Navy's website.

Thanks again for helping defend the country--AND for being smart enough to ask for advice on this issue; it's much better to ask than to editwar! Rdfox 76 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC) (Edited to correct my mistaking who said what. Rdfox 76 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was instructed to take this thought process here. Going from a visual POV, when talking to people I was told to put clean up tags under the infobox templates. It would still place the tag at the top of the article, per guidelines, but it wouldn't throw off the orientation of the pages. The guidelines say top of article but do not specify if that top should be visual or literal. Putting the tag below the infobox on the edit page visually puts the tag at the top of the article, per guidelines, and side by side with the info box. It's visually pleasing and does not throw off the page orientation. The issue is, is it MANDITORY that the tag throws off the page and makes the articles look bad, or is it acceptable for the tag to go below the info box in the edit mode aligning it at the top of the article with the top of the info box? John Black (fiction) being an example of how the Soap Project participants have been instructed. Thank you. CelticGreen 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had never thought about the difference, but the after-the-infobox approach in John Black (fiction) is much more visually appealing than the before-the-infobox placement in Nikolas Cassadine. I believe the phrase "they should be placed at the top of the article" at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is purposely subjective, and it should be an editor's choice. The only reason I could see putting them before the infobox would be to make them more easily found for removal, any dummy can just scroll down to find the tags. I actually think the difference should be made clear in the guidelines as well. — TAnthony^Talk 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is mandatory. This question should not need to be asked, it simply doesn't matter whether the cleanup tags are above or below the infobox. To quote, "Don't edit war over the colour of templates," "some things in this world are more important than others."Atropos 02:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For background, it may be useful to note that, when article message boxes were recently standardized, the early versions of the standard layout broke very badly in some browsers if they were placed beside any floating elements (such as infoboxes). The workaround, of course, being to place them before the infobox instead. I believe the problem that caused this has since been solved, but it may explain why some pages might still say that cleanup tags should always be put before infoboxes. In general, I fully agree that the proper answer is the one given by Atropos: whatever works. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to put it before the infobox. For people using a high resolution monitor, it won't really matter, but for people using lower resolution (not very wide) monitors, putting the templates under the infobox will lead to pages looking something like this:

                                           |                   |  |
                                           |                   |  |
                                           |                   |  |
                                           |      Infobox      |  |
      Large blank space                    |                   |  |
                                           |                   |  |
                                           |___________________|  | <-- Side of the screen
_________________________________________________________         |
|               Cleanup templates                       |         |
|                                                       |         |
|_______________________________________________________|         |
Article text                                                      |

If the infobox is very large, the blank space on top of the article would be very large as well. Mr.Z-man 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all (but I'm impressed with your drawing). I also disagree with your concept of high and low as I have both at the house and it does not leave a large blank space on lower resolution, what it does is leave a large area where you only see the tag clean up or otherwise. Borrowing your template, or trying this is what I see on both screens.

                                           |                 | <-- Side of the screen
_________________________________________________________________ |
|               Cleanup templates                                ||
|                                                                ||
|________________________________________________________________||
                                           |                   |  |
                                           |                   |  |
 Article text                              |      Infobox      |  |
                                           |                   |  |                                       
                                           |___________________|  |

To see what it actually looks like, again, I would direct you to the John Black (fiction) page. With a widescreen, you don't see any article when the tag is at the top. When it's put below the info box it lands side by side with the infobox but doesn't interfere with the article and there is no blank space. CelticGreen 18:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to take the, um, sane perspective on this issue, but if the article is in need of clean-up ANYWAYS, then wouldn't the entire problem be solved by actually fixing the problems noted in the clean-up template? If the article is already "ugly" and in dire need of some form of clean-up, than does the addition of the template REALLY detract that much from the article, regardless of where it is placed? And if the template looks ugly, why not just fix the article so the template can be removed?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up is just an example. There's also tense, citations, etc. Clean up was just the example I chose to use. CelticGreen 18:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did a little more testing and the issue is browser dependent. On Firefox, the template is compressed to fit next to the infobox if you put it below and there is not a huge difference between above and below. On Internet Explorer (at least IE7) it is not compressed and if it cannot fit next to the infobox, it will put it below. Compare:

--Mr.Z-man 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the placement of these temporary messages (whether for cleanup, tone, refs, current event etc) should take into account the structure of the article, rather than the visual appearance, as not everyone views pages in the same skin, or they have their own style or no style applied, or they may not even be viewing the page and they are using a screen reader or a tactile display. These output devices present the information in a linear fashion, starting at the top and working down, so by placing the tag below the infobox, information in the article is presented (that in the infobox), then you get the message, and then the lead section. This confuses the article message and the article content as the message is in the middle of the content, so the message should be placed before content. A good way to find out the linear layout of a page is to view it without any style applied. The Wikipedia:Accessibility guideline provides some layout examples on this. This layout also provides a visual separation between the message and content, showing that the message applies to the infobox content as well, and doesn't mix the two together. Any issues with the visual appearance should be addressed so that the non-visual appearance is still logical and understandable by non-visual users, and the best place to discuss the visual appearance is probably Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes or Template talk:Ambox. Or just fix the articles. mattbr 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Man, thank you. Yes, I use Firefox (it helps with the spelling). So I was not seeing the big white space you described. Now that I see it, I agree and understand. I was going by Firefox so I didn't see that big white gap. Thanks for the research. CelticGreen 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was wondering if it would be possible for me to draw simple line illustrations as seen from a book and be able to use them as images for my article without breaking copyright laws. My article is seam types. I would appreciate any feedback.

Thank you,Snap pea 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_peaSnap pea 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably get an answer here, but there is a page that specializes in this type of question: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the probable answer. If you're copying a line drawing, or creating one by tracing or reproducing an existing image, that is a copy for copyright purposes and would be subject to the same infringement / Wikipedia use analysis as any other copy. In other words, it doesn't buy you anything. On the other hand, if you create a drawing based on an impression without actually copying, that is a completely new work but you have to be careful not to step over the line between that and copying. Also, a line drawing like that is usually not a useful image. We often have a discussion about that for images of famous people, but the same reasoning would apply for pictures of animals, plants, products, scenes, etc. Better just to get a camera and take a picture, or find someone who has. The exception might be a map, chart, or diagram, where you need to create a new free work based on an existing copyrighted work. Wikidemo 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the illustrations in a book are unique to that book, then modifications of them are still problematical. On the other hand, if there are dozens of books that show illustrations of the same seam types, then synthesizing illustrations from a couple of them would not, in my opinion, be a problem. Still, taking pictures for illustrations would seem to avoid any possible doubts about copyright infringement. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some inconsistency/ambiguity in this policy. WP:CONTEXT currently states the following re: date wikilinking:

• Dates when they contain a day, month, and year — [[25 March]] [[2004]] — or day and month — [[February 10]] — should be linked for date preference formatting.
• Stand alone months and days of the week should generally not be linked. Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it, and some users prefer to link (with a piped link) to articles formatted as "year in subject" such as 1441 in art, 1982 in film, and 18th century in United States history.
• Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic.

The guideline states that one should only link to days of the year "if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic" - but in what way could linking to individual days ever deepen readers' understanding of a particular topic? Day pages are by definition a hodge-podge of information about things that happened on that particular day in history, how could this information ever be relevant to a particular topic? I would submit, almost never, so such day-date pages should almost never be linked, but in practice people seem to be linking them all the time. So this policy appears to be inconsistent with current practice.

Also the first paragraph says "Dates when they contain a day, month, and year...should be linked for date preference formatting. It's a little ambiguous, because it appears to indicate that such dates "should be linked" at all times. Shouldn't it read "When dates containing a day, month, and year are linked, they...should be linked for date preference formatting."? That would remove the ambiguity. Is this ambiguity perhaps the reason so many people add day-date links to pages, because they think they are supposed to? Gatoclass 07:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bit isn't actually ambiguous, it does mean always linking them - date formatting preferences only kick in when the date is wikilinked. I type [[8 July]] [[2001]], you see 8 July 2001, I see "2001-07-08". Linking to an absolutely-specific-day is generally not done, except where that day is itself notable (I'm assuming there's a 2001-09-11 article). SamBC(talk) 11:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right, someone on another page just explained it to me. Oh well, at least now I understand why pages are so full of "irrelevant" date wikilinks. But I do think the reason could be made a little more clear on the guideline page. Perhaps I'll have a crack at clarifying it myself sometime in the next few days. Thanks for your help. Gatoclass 15:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 2000 new articles are deleted every day, most of them via speedy deletion. Currently, a person can register at Wikipedia and immediately create an article. Such a new editor, however, cannot move pages or edit semi-protected pages until becoming "autoconfirmed", which currently requires a four-day waiting period. (See Wikipedia:User access levels for details.)

What do others think about applying the autoconfirm criteria to the function of creating new pages, so that the newly registered editors would have to wait four days before creating an article?

(Note that the createtalk function, for creating talk pages, is separate, and would remain as is, available immediately upon registering.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you missed the announcement that anons will be given back the ability to create pages? See here. Dragons flight 11:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't, but I missed the point that it makes no sense to restrict registered users if anons have no such restriction. So I'll wait to see how the experiment turns out, and if anons are subsequently (again) prevented from creating new articles, I'll try to remember to bring this up again. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the experiment produces the result that I am anticipating, this proposal may receive a boost in popularity. Imminent changes notwithstanding, I would support this proposal. Adrian M. H. 12:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this once before - Wikipedia:New users but that was a few months ago. Also, there is a pending software change that may help make Newpage patrol more efficient. When Wikimedia next updates our version of MediaWiki it will probably be tested first, possibly on the German Wikipedia. After the 1 anon article month test is over and the data is collected it will probably be turned on here. Mr.Z-man 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little confused, and wondered if someone could clarify what is and is not acceptable. If an admin makes comments on your talk page, ie. warnings, blocks, etc - is it acceptable to remove these comments, rather than archiving them?Sennen goroshi 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Archiving is preferred, but there's no rule preventing you from simply removing them. Warnings are meant as communication, not as a badge of shame. --Carnildo 07:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, please remember that by removing the warning, it is considered that you have read and understood it. Carnildo is correct though, you can remove any message you wish from your talk page, including notices of warnings, blocks, etc. It is preferable that you archive messages, but it is not mandatory. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a new essay Wikipedia:Don't "call a spade a spade", partly in order to reply WP:SPADE, with which I heartily disagree, and partly to give form to the "How to win a content dispute" essay I've been thinking for months about writing. I welcome any feedback or improvements. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree and well argued. There is never a need to use any sort of derogatory term. D3av 10:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your choice of images, but I was under the impression that fair use images cannot by used outside article space. Adrian M. H. 15:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are those fair use? Darn it; you're right. I have removed them, and would welcome the addition of any appropriate free images. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my own apostate thoughts to the talk page of your fine essay. I suppose I will be pilloried. Ah, well. --Ravpapa 06:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the wording of the banning policy in light of recent disagreements between administrators over how to apply the policy and the conditions under which an administrator may unblock a user. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link? Is it on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy? somewhere else? Thanks! I do see Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Request for comments: Community bans... ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to add this text to the policy page, Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

• Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor is regarded as a personal attack and faces the same restrictions as an on-wiki attack.

It is intended to reflect the current consensus on such issues. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#A growing agreement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be time to reconsider the role of banning role accounts in the smooth operation of things round here? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:OrbitzWWCorpComm for context (anyone can change that to a permalink if it gets archived as it will shortly)... but we have a case of a corp wanting their PR bunch to meticulously follow our policies but as a role account. We have one role account exception. Which appears to do little, or so it was said if you follow the links to WP:ROLE's talk page. Are there any pros to changing our policy? any cons? ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think it needs to be changed. While that account mentioned was not necessarily disruptive, we need to look beyond "is this directly harmful?" and remember what this project is: an encyclopedia edited by the general public. I don't like the idea of having it "general public and corporate PR firms." I'd rather have advertising than explicitly allow such accounts. Some say ads would control content; at least advertisers would not actually edit the content themselves. If accounts like that can be kept away from the articles about the companies they work for, I'd be okay with it, but these accounts are made up of professionals paid to promote their company. They are not being paid to "create the sum of all human knowledge" nor are they being paid to write a balanced account of their company. Perhaps I've become a bit of a cynic about this from spending too much time at CAT:SPAM, but IMO - we don't need accounts like these. Mr.Z-man 13:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there also a legal issue? The individual editors own their copyright and have to label their edits separately. Maybe a corporate role account could be approved for edits only being done with the corporations' approval, but that's something WMF lawyers have to define. (SEWilco 14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why does it always seams that it is an important thing if software is open source, proprietary or something like that. It is often mention first in articles, in infoboxes, in comparison of different software... I think most people care more about the price than this. How many think about if you can read/edit the source, very few does that. I think it gets a to big role in the articles (it can be mentioned of course, but not the way most articles does). (This discussion will probably not change anything, guess there are too many open-source fanatics here, like GNU/Linux-geeks. Helpsloose 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether software is open source is important in terms of licensing and support (whether for better or worse); both of which are significant factors for businesses thinking about adopting new products. Some companies, for example, will only adopt software that has a strong support model, whereas for others the price is a key determinant. These can vary significantly between closed and open source models. — RJH (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might also be more information available about open software which can be examined, rather than the amount of information which a manufacturer releases. That depends upon the particular item. (SEWilco 03:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

But it plays a too important role in many articles. Helpsloose 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you pointed out specific problems, instead of vague claims of the subject being "too important" in unnamed articles. -- 68.156.149.62 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not the correct place to ask, please direct me to the correct page.

A couple of threads above, I asked a question about correct sources, as did PalaceGuard008 in the thread following. Blueboar offered to mediate and I put a great deal of work into formulating my "Issues". This occurred on the Caisson (Asian architecture) talk page. Since then I have been the object of continue incivility, snide remarks, sarcasm, and accusation of bad faith on the part of PalaceGuard008 to the point that I can no longer participate in the discussion. My pleas for civility and Assume Good Faith were ignored. This has been going on for five days now. I complained as frequently as I dared. I finally notified Blueboar that because of the incvility, sarcasm, assumptions of bad faith that were going unchecked I could no longer continue responding on the article talk page. At that point (yesterday) Blueboar issued on lukewarm suggestion to PalacaGuard008 that he lower the sarcasm level, and PalaceGuard008 apologized on my page but blamed his behavior on the frustration he says I caused.

Nothing I did was intentional on my part. I was doing my best.

Please, where can I go for help on this? I need some help with being bullied on that article. Thank you. Mattisse 14:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues like this probably should go over to adminstrator's noticeboard for incidents. --MASEM 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over at the Meerkat Manor article, we are running into an issue of what consitutes original research and I'm seeking some additional guidance from folks not emotionally involved in the article. For the short background, Meerkat Manor is a documentary series about the Whiskers and several other meerkat groups being researched by the Kalahari Meerkat Project (KMP). Since the show is a documentary about real life meerkats, it was agreed by a general consensus that the KMP website is a valid and extremely useful source for providing additional information about the meerkats on the show, particularly updates on their lives (or deaths) between seasons and on the count of meerkats in each group.

The problem, however, is that Animal Planet has renamed several "major" meerkats, but neither Animal Planet nor KMP have released any kind of list that states "X meerkat on the show's real name is Y." However, in several cases, you can easily figure out a meerkat's real name just by looking at the KMP site. For example, on the show, a meerkat named Maybelline left the Whiskers, taking some other meerkats with her, in a split to be a dominant female of a new group called the Aztecs. On the KMP site, in the information about the Aztecs, it states "the Aztecs group was formed in March 2007 as a 15-strong splinter of the Whiskers family, but all adult males returned to the Whiskers within a month. Since then, the Aztecs have consisted of three adult females, led by the oldest, Monkulus, and four pups." Monkulus, therefore, equals Maybelline. For a simpler example, on the show the dominant male of the Commandoes is Hannibal, a big one-eyed meerkat. The KMP site explicitly states that the Commandoes on the show are "played" by the dominant couple of the Vivian research group, which would make Hannibal's real name "Jim Bob" (further evidenced by a picture of Jim Bob, who is a big one-eyed male.

My question is, does this constitute original research because the site does not specifically say "Jim Bob's name was changed the Hannibal" on the show? Must there be a verifiable source that does stay a rename exactly before we can use the information, even if it "seems obvious"?

A secondary question relates to "spoilers" and namely, do non-fiction TV show articles need to be tagged with spoilers if we are including publicly released info from AP or KMP, such as when the article noted Flower's death weeks before the episode aired in the US because AP made press releases about it and the episodes all air in the UK before they air in the US? In general the consensus on the article has been "no spoiler tags" per the guidelines, but we have at least one editor who disagrees (though he doesn't actually contribute to the article, and is speaking solely as a fan). His latest round of arguments can be found on my talk page since he took it there for some reason. Collectonian 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, unless a reliable source says "X = Y", you cannot infer the information from the two sets of data. Saying "X is true" and "Y is true" does NOT mean you can say "X therefore Y" without an external reliable source making that connection. It should be noted that Meerkat Manor is NOT identitical to KMP. The latter is a scientific project whose primary interest is to present facts; the former is primarily an entertainment show whose primary purpose is to sell advertising time on a cable TV network. It does not mean that Meerkat Manor is necessarily false, however stories told in Meerkat Manor cannot be assumed to be purely fact in the same way that information related by KMP is fact. There are certain dramatic liscences I would expect the TV show to take that the research project never would. Even if the TV show is not actually taking said dramatic liscences, it is reasonable to think that it would, and thus would be an unreliable source for anything EXCEPT its own storyline. That is a longwinded way of saying that while the Show is based on the Project, one cannot assume that the Show faithfully reports the results of the Project. It may, but I wouldn't count on it, UNLESS a reliable, independant source says that it does. If no source exists, you can't make that conclusion yourself. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree on the X=Y, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me being much of a hard nose. That fits with what I was already thinking myself, that unless a reliable source says "X=Y" or Animal Planet didn't alter the name, then that info can not be used.

I would, however, have to disagree that KMP is not a source at all and I don't think the KMP data should be completely excluded. It is still a documentary and a non-fiction show, despite the dramatic narration, which would seem to say that it should be taken as fact unless a valid source proves otherwise (as have been noted in the differences section). Other documentary articles work from a presumption the documentary is factual, do they not?

Also, other non-fiction show articles include additional information from outside sources and are not limited to just what is in the show. Animal Planet is not reporting the results of the project, true, but they are reporting the events in the lives of specific meerkats under the project scope. The article shouldn't be pure KMP data and some of the first edits done in the clean up of the article was to remove all KMP meerkat individuals and groups that were not actually featured on the show and other outside information that had nothing to do with the show itself. However, I think information from KMP on the meerkats Animal Planet does choose to feature is a valid secondary source of information. KMP can confirm Animal Planet's telling of events, fill in gaps where Animal Planet sometimes forgets meerkats, to provide additional information about the history of a meerkat, or to point out one of those "creative licenses" such as using two groups for one. Collectonian 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, I would disagree with that, and I wonder why the article needs that. Honestly, there is no need to "fill in" any information. List the "characters" as the show reports them, name them, maybe mention the fact that it is based on the KMP, but what is the need to add the extra information? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they aren't characters or fictional elements, but real life meerkats. They are the "cast" of a non-fiction show, not the "characters" of a fictional one. The additional information is relevant to their roles in their groups and the show. If it were a documentary about a group of people on an island, is it not relevant and proper to include some background info about each person in the article to put them in a proper context of where they are in the article and to maybe include follow up about them afterwards? Almost everyone who appeared on Survivor not only got background info added, but they got their own articles. If such information is unimportant for non-fictional shows and those articles should only include exactly what is said in the show, then what is the point of having the article at all? Just watch the show. I thought part of the purpose of Wikipedia was to expound on a topic, not just act as an episode guide? Collectonian 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about other shows with multiple versions point out differences. Without checking those articles, I expect several BBC shows which have aired in the USA have articles with differences mentioned. I recently looked at one of the articles about The Office and think I also saw comparisons between the separately produced versions. I'd suggest MM deal with what shows on AP, with linked mention of its KMP parentage. In KMP put all the KMP details, and at the bottom of KMP start an X,Y table of significant similarities with MM. See where that goes. (SEWilco 03:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The KMP article once had all the details of their meerkats, including those not on MM. After some discussion between the few editors who have bother much with that article, it was removed under the grounds that it wasn't "encyclopedic" and just a repeat of the KMP site. To quote one editor "It's a study of meerkat ethology. Although the meerkats and the groups are given names, this isn't for the purpose of making them into film stars or soap opera characters, as someone watching Meerkat Manor might be led to believe." The article has since been greatly expanded, but info on specific meerkats is still out unless someone else wants to go argue the case that it is valuable information (I tried and failed).

So, the desire seems to be to keep most MM stuff out of the KMP article except to mention the show features their meerkats (along with some other documentaries), with links over to the show. With that idea implemented and following the somewhat confusing TV project style guide, an overhaul of the MM article began to try to vastly improve and expand it. I do think it is much better than it was, as it now has actual information appropriate for a TV show article, such as production details and reception, and removing a lot of fancruft. There are sections listing differences between the show and "reality" (as well as the UK/US differences).

To further add to the mix/confusion, there is now a book out called Meerkat Manor: Flower of the Kalahari with covers Flower's life and the other Whiskers. If the KMP info is to be excluded, should then anything from the book be excluded as well (which is by the KMP researcher)? Also, the spoiler issue is separate from the KMP issue (most of the "spoilers" have come from UK viewers or the official show sites), so feedback on it is also appreciated.  :) Collectonian 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction elements cannot be "spoiled". Flower's death, for example, is a fact, being the real death of a real meerkat, reported on in news sources, and it would be a disservice to fail to note that simply because the death hasn't been documented on a particular program. Game shows and reality programs are a bit of a grey area, because the reality is being presented for entertainment purposes. However, in this case, the death of Flower was not a scripted element; it was not planned for its dramatic effect, and thus nothing is "spoiled" by finding out she's dead. Powers ^T 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think the spoiler tags belong at all. The issue on the KMP data is still very much in the air though. Per the discussion so far, no more KMP data has been allowed to be added until a consensus was reached, but now quite a few other editors are upset because the article is presenting incorrect information. In particular, the new book that came out appears to correct quite a few things mistated in the show, or adds details not mentioned in the show, and now that it is available, several editors are wanting to put in "corrections." Originally I would agree, but after this discussion, I'm more conflicted. I can see both sides of the issue. I personally prefer having the info because it authenticates and enhances the show's topic, but the article is about the show and not the topic itself, so in that regard, the other stuff doesn't belong. Collectonian 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20071025.html

The above article addresses an issue that, it seems to me, may affect Wikipedia. In the case described, a Texas teenager is suing an Australian company that used a CC-licensed image of her, placed on Flickr by the photographer, in an advertisement. The teenager's rights to her own image were violated by using it for a commercial purpose without her permission or release (or so her lawyer is arguing).

As you know, Wikipedia's image policy requires that images be usable in commercial contexts. Many images in Wikipedia (and the Commons for that matter) are copied from Flickr under CC licensing. If any of these contain images of individuals, there could be legal problems if those images are used in a commercial context, per the above.

Is this an issue or is there something I'm missing here?

-- Powers ^T 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're missing is that publicity rights are not a part of copyright, and they are not an inherent part of commercial use. There are many commercial uses for images (say, news reporting) that don't require a publicity rights release. --Carnildo 20:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but is Wikipedia content restricted to being used in those ways? Powers ^T 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost important to note that part of her claim is that their use constituted defamation by casting her in a poor light. Rights the protect individuals from libel are also a seperate beast entirely from copyrights. Dragons flight 00:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the US (I limit myself to the US only because I know the law in the US the best) the only use class substantially limited by publicity rights is the right to use an identifiable image of a person to promote something. Like trademarks, you can think of this as a kind of anti-fraud law: You can't use someone's picture to make it look like they endorse your product when they really don't. It's a very limited class of use.

Asking if Wikipedia content is restricted to being used in those ways is missing the point, somewhat. Wikipedia is not. True, but nothing about Wikipedia's licensing terms forbids you from somehow using Wikipedia to commit murder, for example. Yet committing murder using Wikipedia content is still illegal and we do not consider Wikipedia to be non-free as a result.

This entire subject should be much more interesting to Commons than Wikipedia. Commons is, in part, a free content replacement for commercial stock archives. Many stock images come with rights releases, but by no means do all of them, and you will pretty much never find an image of a famous person with a rights release in a stock archive (although there will be many images of famous people...). For this reason it would be useful if commons would collect releases for some images to improve their parity with the commercial stock galleries. --Gmaxwell 22:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about changing the COI guideline to improve expert retention has begun at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts. Comments are welcome. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous articles in Wiki talk about countries having wishes, demands and such. I feel this hardly ever the case. It is usually a pars pro toto.

I have seen several opinion poles suggesting that the citizens of countries do not agree with their governments, on the issues reported.

Therefore ,would it not be better to speak of administrations or governements? Examples: The Bush administration rejects the Kyoto Protocol, while I know of poles which indicate that most american citizens are in favour on ratifying it. America boycots Cuba: I have seen reports on various forums stating that most american citizens are against the Cuban boycot.

Has this issues been adressed somewhere?

Aixroot 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

such information, if reported in reliable sources may be valid to add to articles. For example, if Bush Administrations official position on the Kyoto Protocol is published in reliable sources, CITE THOSE SOURCES, and then put the position in the article (it is QUITE noteworthy and hevaily covered). Likewise, if the New York Times or Newsweek has published the results of a poll, it MAY be appropriate to say "On October 31, 2007, Newsweek and The New York Times published the results of a poll that indicated that 71% of U.S. citizens disagree with the Bush Adminsitration on this issue". The key is to report FACTS and CITE SOURCES. Saying "XXXXX reports the results of poll YYYYYY is" is the best way to handle this. Even saying "polls indicate that the majority of American's think..." and then include an inline cite to the specific polls may be OK too, but I like the first form better. What is inappropriate is to say "Americans disagree with the adminsitration" without providing the context and source of this statement. Being transparent in your sources, and being clear that opinions and statistics COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, and that what Wikipedia does is simply report WHOSE opinion or statistic it is, but that Wikipedia also needs to remain neutral on all issues AND avoid presenting original ideas. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user has now discovered that nndb uses referral codes in its links to Amazon which generate profit for the site i.e. here on the NNDB Spider Man 3 article. It may well be that some Wikipedia users are associated with this site and are behind mass adding of links to articles. I consider the site inappropriate to link to as it usually has a lot less information than can be expected in a featured article which is one of the requirements at WP:EL. I believe having a template for this site just encourages some people to link to it as they think somehow that Wikipedia is endorsing the link by having a template - I would appreciate people's comments on the deletion debate for the template, and the NNDB discussion page. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the transclusions, there doesn't seem to be an "mass adding of links" as you indicate. Quatloo 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a particular interest in NNDB, Rotten.com and Soylent Communications, the company that owns both of these websites. You have been defending the inclusion [3] of NNDB links since at least January, 2006 [4]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine a more clearcut example of mass link farming for commercial purposes as this. I wish more people would weigh in on this so that the members with a WP:COI of the site do not get to have their say by default because not enough other people feel like stating their opinion. DreamGuy 14:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this appears to be inappropriate linkspamming. My suggestion is to post a notice at WikiProject Spam. There are some extremely talented researchers and bot operators over there who are experts at gathering data and sorting out issues exactly like this one. And, if necessary, they excel at cleaning up links and blacklisting sites as well. -- Satori Son 15:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some question regarding the following passage:

In preparation for the game, developers gathered together materials from all manner of sources—"mountains of photographs snapped from ventures outside the dark confines of our office...huge numbers of nature books that our artists use for recreating authentic trees, grasses, and plants." "Texture images, reference photography of architecture, natural formations" that the team has drawn from personal trips overseas also formed a part of the team's sources. "We pull," said producer Gavin Carter, "from as many sources as we can get our hands on."[19] Where, in Morrowind, the chief graphical focus of the team was on water, the chief focus in Oblivion lay on its forests, its "big, photorealistic forests".[21] The inclusion of procedural content tools allowed for the creation of realistic environments at much faster rates than was the case with Morrowind.[22] Using IDV’s SpeedTree technology, for example, Bethesda artists were able to "quickly generate complex and organic tree shapes with relative ease". Bethesda's Noah Berry attests that "using parent/child hierarchies and iterative branch levels comprised of highly modifiable cylinder primitives, an entire tree shape can be created in a manner of minutes, just by adjusting numerical values and tweaking spline curve handles".[23] Instead of Morrowind's artificially smoothed-over terrain, erosion algorithms incorporated in the landscape generation tools allowed for the creation of "craggy mountain vistas" quickly and easily.

I believe the author relies too heavily on the developers (quoted) to make his points for him. Which policy(-ies) apply? Manual of Style? NPOV? SharkD 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that if there is a fault in Wikipedia writing, it is that we quote too little, not too much. there are many biographical articles in which the subject of the article is not quoted at all. Here, I think the author has done a pretty good job of putting the quotes into context. If I were to criticize it, I would suggest breaking it up into several paragraphs - having quote followed by quote makes it hard to read, sometimes. --Ravpapa 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ravpapa is right here. The use of quotes is not inapporpriate. There are some issues with the tone of the writing, as it gets somewhat informal in places, but that is a small copyedit issue. The use of quotes here seems appropriate for what it is. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems with an IP that keeps adding a scroll box to List of turnpikes in Virginia and West Virginia and several other lists in Category:Pre-freeway turnpikes in the United States. --NE2 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been done by at least the following: User talk:121.44.4.8, User talk:121.44.105.216, User:Adam.J.W.C., User:Princeboy. --NE2 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]